Then I fail to understand what all the brouhaha has been about. What’s the difference between building a pipeline and sending out the water in 20 litre bottles?—except perhaps that some private corporation will make money while taking the water for free.
There is an elephant in the closet with us
that seems to be escaping attention: ownership of the Commons. By commons I
mean the parts of the planet that are owned in common—the air we breathe,
the water in the
I think a lot of people on this list are aware of that loophole (Nestle), and thus this isn't really news to anyone. I'd venture to say nearly everyone agrees with Mr. Olsen.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM, ecothinker <email@example.com> wrote:
I'm surprised not to see any comments from others on this list regarding the 'catch' in the compact. Was this just something that slid in under the radar?
On Behalf Of HAMILTREEF@aol.com
07/22/08 THE CANADIAN PRESS
And James Olsen tells a
The Great Lakes Compact,
agreed to by eight
The pact prohibits the
bulk diversion of water from the
The catch, says Olsen, is that there's no limit on how many containers a business, such as a major bottler, can take.
He says that sets a
dangerous legal precedent giving water a "product" exemption from the
diversion ban on
A spokesperson for the
He told the newspaper he
recognizes "many people have expressed concerns about water bottlers in
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.